Was Patton Ignorant?

[Sunforged General]

With his claim that "We (America) fought the wrong enemy" in ww2. First of all Japan bombed you, then Germany and Italy declared war on you, you did not choose your enemies, they chose you.

Secondly, he wanted to attack the Russians right as WW2 ended. This would make the US and British be the aggressors, the Russians would be the good guys on defense, not to mention the situation in may 1945 was this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victo...File:Allied_army_positions_on_10_May_1945.png

Just looking at that map, we see 6 American armies, 2 British armies, 1 French army, 1 Canadian army, for a total of 10 Western Allied armies. Meanwhile the Soviets are rocking 40 armies in Europe. Plus 2 Communist polish armies, and 4 Communist Yugoslav armies. For a total of 46 Soviet/Communist armies. So not only would the US be the aggressor, but you would be trying to push back battle hardened forces who outnumber you 4.6 to 1, and to boot, the Russian tanks are better. IS-2 was more powerful than Tigers, and more numerous than them.

 

[Narwhal]

I think you have proved you have not a real good knowledge of WW2 history and situation, so maybe you should not throw hypothesis like "Was Patton Ignorant" lightly.

The number of armies is one thing. The number of soldiers in each army is something else.
The Soviet have ca 11 millions men under arms in 1945 ... and no reserve whatsoever. They had called the 1928 class, so 16 years old-teenager. The Americans have 8 millions men under arms, granted a lot of them allocated to the Pacific, and still a huge reserve to pull from. Then there are the French (large reserve), 4m or so English (some reserve too). The Eastern European countries have no reserve to pull from, and some of them would switch side as soon as they can (Romania typically)

The Soviet troops may have more experience, but they have less planes, and those planes they have are below the US / English planes (no jets).
Their tanks are not better than what the Americans are starting to deploy in 1945 (as they would later discover during the Korean War : a M-26 Pershing was as good as whatever the Soviets had, and in any case wiped-out totally the T34-85 which was their usual match-up there) ; and though the Soviet have more heavy tanks the Americans have M-36 to compensate.
The only clear soviet advantage is on artillery.
That's before accounting for the nukes, of course, but the Americans had very very few of these before the 50ies

So would an attack on the Soviet have worked ? Maybe not. Was it crazy military-wise from the information Patton had ? No.

 

[Sunforged General]

I think you have proved you have not a real good knowledge of WW2 history and situation, so maybe you should not throw hypothesis like "Was Patton Ignorant" lightly.

The number of armies is one thing. The number of soldiers in each army is something else.
The Soviet have 11 millions men under arms in 1945 ... and no reserve whatsoever. They had called the 1928 class, so 16 years old-teenager. The Americans have 8 millions men under arms, granted a lot of them allocated to the Pacific, and still a huge reserve to pull from. Then there are the French (large reserve), English (some reserve too). The Eastern European countries have no reserve to pull from, and some of them would switch side as soon as they can (Romania typically)

The Soviet troops may have more experience, but they have less planes, and those planes they have are below the US / English planes (no jets). Their tanks are not better than what the Americans are starting to deploy in 1945 (as they would later discover during the Korean War : a M-26 Pershing is as good as whatever the Soviets have) ; and though the Soviet have more heavy tanks the Americans M-36 to compensate.
The only clear soviet advantage is on artillery.
That's before accounting for the nukes, of course, but the Americans had very very few of these before the 50ies

So would an attack on the Soviet have worked ? Maybe not. Was it crazy military-wise from the information Patton had ? No.

The biggest problem is, since Patton wanted to Attack, usually the Attacker has to outnumber the defender in order to win. (I know this is not always the case, but I doubt America would pull off Operation Barbarossa level victories against a war hardened soviet army.)

Also, how exactly have I "shown to not have real good knowledge of WW2 history?" Patton being ignorant is a fact, he used to beat shell shocked soldiers and call them cowards, even after Military physicians tried to convince him that shell shocked soldiers were not cowards, but had legitimate mental afflictions. He ignored the medical experts and continued to believe his soldiers were cowards, that is ignorance when you ignore the experts opinion.

 

[Kovax]

Was Patton ignorant? Very possibly, as his behavior shows. Was he militarily incompetent to suggest taking on the Soviets as soon as the Germans were defeated? Maybe not.

The American artillery was significantly outnumbered by what the Soviets had in the theater, but operated with far more advanced spotting and coordination with the infantry. The Soviets still relied primarily on "set piece" battles where they chose a target for massive artillery bombardment, then spent days setting up and hauling in sufficient ammunition to meet the needs of "the plan". American artillery could be called in on a target by low-level troops for needed support on short notice. Volume of fire is one measure of effectiveness; volume of fire on target is a better one, but what's even more important still is whether or not the enemy is in the target area when you begin your barrage. Many Soviet barrages were wasted on "target areas" which were no longer heavily occupied by enemy troops, once the Germans learned to anticipate the Soviet bombardments and withdraw all but a weak skirmish line from the expected area before and during the bombardment, then bring additional troops forward to reoccupy the positions before the Soviet ground assault.

US and UK aircraft were technologically superior to the vast majority of what the Soviets were fielding. Air support would have gradually evaporated for the Soviets, and steadily increased for the Allies as a disproportionate share of the air casualties were inflicted on the Soviets and freshly built US planes arrived at a greater rate than Soviet replacements.

Most of the late-war Allied tank destroyers were quite capable of taking on Soviet tanks, and most tanks are destroyed by anti-tank guns and air attacks anyway, not in tank versus tank battles. The US tanks were very well suited for their primary role as mobile infantry support, not for killing tanks. I see this as a minor Soviet advantage at most, set against the other significant Allied advantages.

Manpower was already a problem for the Soviets. They were capable of fielding an immense army, but had already done so, and the well was getting pretty close to the bottom. The US still had a huge amount of population which had barely been touched, but would take time to train and bring across the Atlantic. Short-term significant Soviet advantage, long term minor Allied advantage.

The Soviets were being supported by numerous US-made products through Lend-Lease, and a sizable share of their logistical and communication capabilities depended on it. In any prolonged conflict, the Soviets would have had to divert much of their military production back to producing supporting equipment, rather than tanks, guns, and planes.

It would very likely have been biting off more than the Allies could easily chew, but not an unwinnable war by any means. Militarily, probably not a bad assessment. Politically, totally unacceptable.

 

[Narwhal]

Nice comment on artillery, though I thought that by the end of the war the Soviets were way better at hitting the targets (possibly because the Germans were less and less mobile and the best cadres were dead). Agree on all of Kovax comments 100%.

 

[Dina1954]

Was Patton ignorant? Very possibly, as his behavior shows. Was he militarily incompetent to suggest taking on the Soviets as soon as the Germans were defeated? Maybe not.

The American artillery was significantly outnumbered by what the Soviets had in the theater, but operated with far more advanced spotting and coordination with the infantry. The Soviets still relied primarily on "set piece" battles where they chose a target for massive artillery bombardment, then spent days setting up and hauling in sufficient ammunition to meet the needs of "the plan". American artillery could be called in on a target by low-level troops for needed support on short notice. Volume of fire is one measure of effectiveness; volume of fire on target is a better one, but what's even more important still is whether or not the enemy is in the target area when you begin your barrage. Many Soviet barrages were wasted on "target areas" which were no longer heavily occupied by enemy troops, once the Germans learned to anticipate the Soviet bombardments and withdraw all but a weak skirmish line from the expected area before and during the bombardment, then bring additional troops forward to reoccupy the positions before the Soviet ground assault.

US and UK aircraft were technologically superior to the vast majority of what the Soviets were fielding. Air support would have gradually evaporated for the Soviets, and steadily increased for the Allies as a disproportionate share of the air casualties were inflicted on the Soviets and freshly built US planes arrived at a greater rate than Soviet replacements.

Most of the late-war Allied tank destroyers were quite capable of taking on Soviet tanks, and most tanks are destroyed by anti-tank guns and air attacks anyway, not in tank versus tank battles. The US tanks were very well suited for their primary role as mobile infantry support, not for killing tanks. I see this as a minor Soviet advantage at most, set against the other significant Allied advantages.

Manpower was already a problem for the Soviets. They were capable of fielding an immense army, but had already done so, and the well was getting pretty close to the bottom. The US still had a huge amount of population which had barely been touched, but would take time to train and bring across the Atlantic. Short-term significant Soviet advantage, long term minor Allied advantage.

The Soviets were being supported by numerous US-made products through Lend-Lease, and a sizable share of their logistical and communication capabilities depended on it. In any prolonged conflict, the Soviets would have had to divert much of their military production back to producing supporting equipment, rather than tanks, guns, and planes.

It would very likely have been biting off more than the Allies could easily chew, but not an unwinnable war by any means. Militarily, probably not a bad assessment. Politically, totally unacceptable.

Agree with you 100% and now the Soviet have no Lend and Lease in 1945 they have problem with FOOD and will not have canded HAM.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

To the OP, probably, yes. Although running one's mouth off is easy. I doubt he was earnest.

Soviets would have driven the US army out of Europe, and probably quite easily.

If Third World China can immediately come out of a brutal longer war, with far more equipment and logistical problems, and still kick US butt, don't see why the Soviets would have any problem.

And not sure why some are adding UK & France to calcs. UK was not in a position to help in such a foolish escapade (even if it wanted to, which it likely wouldn't). France would have probably gone instant Commie and switched sides.

 

[Sunforged General]

Was Patton ignorant? Very possibly, as his behavior shows. Was he militarily incompetent to suggest taking on the Soviets as soon as the Germans were defeated? Maybe not.

The American artillery was significantly outnumbered by what the Soviets had in the theater, but operated with far more advanced spotting and coordination with the infantry. The Soviets still relied primarily on "set piece" battles where they chose a target for massive artillery bombardment, then spent days setting up and hauling in sufficient ammunition to meet the needs of "the plan". American artillery could be called in on a target by low-level troops for needed support on short notice. Volume of fire is one measure of effectiveness; volume of fire on target is a better one, but what's even more important still is whether or not the enemy is in the target area when you begin your barrage. Many Soviet barrages were wasted on "target areas" which were no longer heavily occupied by enemy troops, once the Germans learned to anticipate the Soviet bombardments and withdraw all but a weak skirmish line from the expected area before and during the bombardment, then bring additional troops forward to reoccupy the positions before the Soviet ground assault.

US and UK aircraft were technologically superior to the vast majority of what the Soviets were fielding. Air support would have gradually evaporated for the Soviets, and steadily increased for the Allies as a disproportionate share of the air casualties were inflicted on the Soviets and freshly built US planes arrived at a greater rate than Soviet replacements.

Most of the late-war Allied tank destroyers were quite capable of taking on Soviet tanks, and most tanks are destroyed by anti-tank guns and air attacks anyway, not in tank versus tank battles. The US tanks were very well suited for their primary role as mobile infantry support, not for killing tanks. I see this as a minor Soviet advantage at most, set against the other significant Allied advantages.

Manpower was already a problem for the Soviets. They were capable of fielding an immense army, but had already done so, and the well was getting pretty close to the bottom. The US still had a huge amount of population which had barely been touched, but would take time to train and bring across the Atlantic. Short-term significant Soviet advantage, long term minor Allied advantage.

The Soviets were being supported by numerous US-made products through Lend-Lease, and a sizable share of their logistical and communication capabilities depended on it. In any prolonged conflict, the Soviets would have had to divert much of their military production back to producing supporting equipment, rather than tanks, guns, and planes.

It would very likely have been biting off more than the Allies could easily chew, but not an unwinnable war by any means. Militarily, probably not a bad assessment. Politically, totally unacceptable.

Hmm, allied tank destroyers could likely take out T-34s easily enough, IS-2s and IS-3s...not so much. The 90mm gun, the heaviest anti tank gun the US had, also used on the Pershing, would not be able to penetrate the frontal armor of the IS-2, which was made to be resistant to the 88mm guns of the Germans. Add that to the fact that the IS-2 was far, far more common than the Tigers were, and you have a situation where Americans on the ground are tactically outclassed.

Now, allied aircraft were not "superior" to soviet ones. The Lavochkin La-7 was considered to be at least the equal, if not superior to, all German piston engine aircraft. The Soviets would be outnumbered in the Air, but the Allies would be too far away from Soviet factories in Russia to bomb them. And on the front lines, the Soviets now had larger numbers of anti air guns. On ground support aircraft, the Soviets have the advantage, Ilyushin Il-2 was an armored ground attack aircraft, and it was the most produced military aircraft of all time, with 36,183 produced during WW2.

The Allies have no way of knocking out Soviet industry, and have to attack a numerically superior, and semi technologically superior force. The Soviets having battle experienced troops, and being on the defensive get the advantage. Since the border between allies and soviets in Germany was the Elbe river, the Allies have to attack over a river to boot. The fact that the Soviets used set piece battle artillery barrages, well since the Americans are attacking, the Russians know where the Americans are coming from, and simply set up their artillery where the Americans build up their troops.

Its not militarily feasible for the Allies to win such a war, especially since Japan is less likely to surrender now, they would see the Soviets as the "enemy of my enemy" and probably not surrender despite atomic bombings. One major reason the Japanese surrendered is because the Soviets attacked them in late 1945. If they form some kind of agreement, Japan will be taking the lions share of American reserves.

 

[Henry IX]

When a potential Western attack on the Soviets has been discussed in the past the general consensus has been that the Soviets have a significant advantage in the short term but if they cannot destroy the Western armies in the first few months then they are in serious trouble.

Now, allied aircraft were not "superior" to soviet ones. The Lavochkin La-7 was considered to be at least the equal, if not superior to, all German piston engine aircraft. The Soviets would be outnumbered in the Air, but the Allies would be too far away from Soviet factories in Russia to bomb them. And on the front lines, the Soviets now had larger numbers of anti air guns. On ground support aircraft, the Soviets have the advantage, Ilyushin Il-2 was an armored ground attack aircraft, and it was the most produced military aircraft of all time, with 36,183 produced during WW2

The Soviet air force is a match for the Western powers at low level - the La-7 and Yak-9 are both solid fighters and the Il-2 is excellent at the ground attack role. However, allied fighters have a far superior performance at high altitude and the allies also have the ability to perform effective high altitude bombing, which the Soviets have little to counter it with. Soviet supply lines, running hundreds of kilometres through war torn central and eastern Europe, are likely to rapidly collapse under allied bombing.

In general, I would typify Patton's comments as obnoxious and bombastic rather than ignorant...

 

[MCMartel]

AFAIK, no one besides churchill and maybe Patton *at all* took the idea of attacking russia seriously. It would have been a horrifying bloodbath, the end of which would have been in doubt and millions would have died. If Patton actually believed in attacking the USSR, he was tremendously ignorant, but he was a tremendously vainglorious showboat, so it could just be him spouting off, which he did all the time.

 

[Sunforged General]

When a potential Western attack on the Soviets has been discussed in the past the general consensus has been that the Soviets have a significant advantage in the short term but if they cannot destroy the Western armies in the first few months then they are in serious trouble.



The Soviet air force is a match for the Western powers at low level - the La-7 and Yak-9 are both solid fighters and the Il-2 is excellent at the ground attack role. However, allied fighters have a far superior performance at high altitude and the allies also have the ability to perform effective high altitude bombing, which the Soviets have little to counter it with. Soviet supply lines, running hundreds of kilometres through war torn central and eastern Europe, are likely to rapidly collapse under allied bombing.

In general, I would typify Patton's comments as obnoxious and bombastic rather than ignorant...

Fair enough, though id point out that bombing a mobile target, such as shift-able supply lines is a lot harder than bombing a fixed target such as German factories. This was shown in Vietnam, where the US filled the sky with bombers, yet found it impossible to break the supply lines of the Vietcong. Lucky for the Russians, defeating them by knocking out their industry would be impossible since most of it was east of the Ural mountains, 1000 miles east of Moscow. And trying to disrupt their supply lines would be an uphill battle, since the Red Army had experience in camouflaging their supply lines from the times the Germans had air superiority on the eastern front.

 

[Henry IX]

Fair enough, though id point out that bombing a mobile target, such as shift-able supply lines is a lot harder than bombing a fixed target such as German factories. This was shown in Vietnam, where the US filled the sky with bombers, yet found it impossible to break the supply lines of the Vietcong. Lucky for the Russians, defeating them by knocking out their industry would be impossible since most of it was east of the Ural mountains, 1000 miles east of Moscow. And trying to disrupt their supply lines would be an uphill battle, since the Red Army had experience in camouflaging their supply lines from the times the Germans had air superiority on the eastern front.

The Soviet army in WWII was highly dependent on rail for most of its logistical support. There were only adequate trucks to keep the armoured/mechanised units functioning for about 250km advances from the nearest railhead. Even then the advance could only be sustained for short period of high intensity. The infantry relied almost entirely on wagons and rail. This means that cutting Soviet supply could be done by attacking the rail lines / marshalling yards / stations.

The Vietcong, by contrast, were fighting a low intensity war with very limited logistical demands. They could get adequate supplies carried on the backs of people and animals.

The Germans never had the capability to attack targets deeper than the operational zone, and focused on attacks in the combat zone, as their main attack aircraft were single engine and twin engine bombers with modest ranges, small bomb loads and which were highly vulnerable to interception and so could not operate for extended periods in hostile airspace. Hence the Soviets did not have to focus on protecting their railheads except when they moved close to the combat zone, where the primary concern became rampaging panzers not bombing.

The B-17 had sufficient range to attack rail lines as far west as Brest-Litovsk from bases in Western Germany. This gives a vast distance that the logistics lifeline has to travel through, where any significant interruption could cause the degrading of front line capabilities (particularly offensive capabilities).

The industry in the Urals, however, is safe until the western armies fight their way to Belarus, at which point the war is likely over already (I doubt even the Soviets could bounce back from the sorts of defeats implied by them being forced all the way back across their borders).

 

[Sunforged General]

The Soviet army in WWII was highly dependent on rail for most of its logistical support. There were only adequate trucks to keep the armoured/mechanised units functioning for about 250km advances from the nearest railhead. Even then the advance could only be sustained for short period of high intensity. The infantry relied almost entirely on wagons and rail. This means that cutting Soviet supply could be done by attacking the rail lines / marshalling yards / stations.

The Vietcong, by contrast, were fighting a low intensity war with very limited logistical demands. They could get adequate supplies carried on the backs of people and animals.

The Germans never had the capability to attack targets deeper than the operational zone, and focused on attacks in the combat zone, as their main attack aircraft were single engine and twin engine bombers with modest ranges, small bomb loads and which were highly vulnerable to interception and so could not operate for extended periods in hostile airspace. Hence the Soviets did not have to focus on protecting their railheads except when they moved close to the combat zone, where the primary concern became rampaging panzers not bombing.

The B-17 had sufficient range to attack rail lines as far west as Brest-Litovsk from bases in Western Germany. This gives a vast distance that the logistics lifeline has to travel through, where any significant interruption could cause the degrading of front line capabilities (particularly offensive capabilities).

The industry in the Urals, however, is safe until the western armies fight their way to Belarus, at which point the war is likely over already (I doubt even the Soviets could bounce back from the sorts of defeats implied by them being forced all the way back across their borders).

Getting to Belarus? The allies would have the fight of their lives trying to just not get pushed across the Rhine river. Thats really as far the Soviets need to push them to win. At that point the Allies would have no way to strike back. The Rhine river is a big river, it would make an excellent defensive barrier for the Russians.

Its also worth mentioning railroad tracks are not that hard to fix. In some cases during WW2 it was seen railroad tracks could be fixed overnight, one instance of Soviet partisans sabotaging German held tracks showed that the partisans would have to bomb the tracks every night, because the Germans would fix them in the day. The allied bombs used to damage the tracks would cost more than the material used to fix the tracks. Thats not to mention any allied bombers shot down.

 

[Henry IX]

Getting to Belarus?

That was not meant to be a statement of what is likely to happen! Simply a statement of where the Western forces would need to advance to threaten Soviet industry in the Urals.

The Allies managed to almost completely cripple the German rail capacity to the point that they struggled to ammunition from factories in the Ruhr to front lines in the Low Countries. That level of damage would halt all Soviet offensive actions fairly quickly. The Soviets would have 1-3 months to crush the armies in France before they lose their offensive capacities. I would give the Soviets reasonable odds on managing this, but it is no certainty. Either way, attacking them would be a monumental risk for the Western Allies.

 

[elektrizikekswerk]

The Allies managed to almost completely cripple the German rail capacity to the point that they struggled to ammunition from factories in the Ruhr to front lines in the Low Countries.

But was this due to damaged tracks (easy to repair) or more due to damaged transport hubs (not so easy) and lacking locomotives/wagons (hard to replace)?

Another interesting question comes to mind: If the US/Allies would have attacked the USSR on German soil more or less immediately after German surrender how would the Germans would have reacted? In "Cold War gone hot" war games Germany was almost always designated the main battle field but that was with Germans fighting on either side rather than just being "observers".
Since many German troops (and civilians) tried to surrender to US/British troops instead of Soviet troops (if given the chance) and especially from Berlin there are many reports of Soviet soldiers going... wild... I would guess that most Germans would have sided the Allies and seen them as liberators against the Soviet occupation.

Maybe even up to a degree that the Battle of Castle Itter indeed would've been more than just a curious side note of the war.
Now I'm talking about former Wehrmacht formations being reequipped by Allies and then sent back to the front - this time from the other side of the river. Would that have been a possibility? I could at least imagine that Wehrmacht units would have been ready to fight for the Allies (or rather: Fight for the liberation of their land supported by Allies). But somehow I cannot imagine that the same would be true for the Soviet side...
(Note: I'm talking about the Wehrmacht, not SS. I doubt that anyone would have allowed SS units to reequip)

 

[Sunforged General]

But was this due to damaged tracks (easy to repair) or more due to damaged transport hubs (not so easy) and lacking locomotives/wagons (hard to replace)?

Another interesting question comes to mind: If the US/Allies would have attacked the USSR on German soil more or less immediately after German surrender how would the Germans would have reacted? In "Cold War gone hot" war games Germany was almost always designated the main battle field but that was with Germans fighting on either side rather than just being "observers".
Since many German troops (and civilians) tried to surrender to US/British troops instead of Soviet troops (if given the chance) and especially from Berlin there are many reports of Soviet soldiers going... wild... I would guess that most Germans would have sided the Allies and seen them as liberators against the Soviet occupation.

Maybe even up to a degree that the Battle of Castle Itter indeed would've been more than just a curious side note of the war.
Now I'm talking about former Wehrmacht formations being reequipped by Allies and then sent back to the front - this time from the other side of the river. Would that have been a possibility? I could at least imagine that Wehrmacht units would have been ready to fight for the Allies (or rather: Fight for the liberation of their land supported by Allies). But somehow I cannot imagine that the same would be true for the Soviet side...
(Note: I'm talking about the Wehrmacht, not SS. I doubt that anyone would have allowed SS units to reequip)

Considering the allies start this war, and break their Alliance/Agreement with the Soviets, most of the world would not view the allies favorably in this war, and would likely withhold their support. I doubt any Australians or Brazilians would want to go fight a suicide war with the Soviets over a fight started by the Americans and British. As for the Germans, any Germans behind the Soviet lines would simply be conscripted. Conscription does not require willing men to join the army. But the National Committee for a free Germany showed many Germans were willing to work with the Soviets. Even many Wehrmacht officers, after capture, joined this soviet sponsored organization. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Committee_for_a_Free_Germany

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

Hmm, allied tank destroyers could likely take out T-34s easily enough, IS-2s and IS-3s...not so much. The 90mm gun, the heaviest anti tank gun the US had, also used on the Pershing, would not be able to penetrate the frontal armor of the IS-2, which was made to be resistant to the 88mm guns of the Germans. Add that to the fact that the IS-2 was far, far more common than the Tigers were, and you have a situation where Americans on the ground are tactically outclassed.

? The US 90mm gun was more powerful than 88/56 with AP and more powerful than 88/71 with HVAP. Slightly later equivalent 90mm guns on the Patton tank series were knocking out more heavily armoured (than JS-2) T-54s just fine (including with ammo not rated to penetrate them ).

Now, allied aircraft were not "superior" to soviet ones. The Lavochkin La-7 was considered to be at least the equal, if not superior to, all German piston engine aircraft. The Soviets would be outnumbered in the Air, but the Allies would be too far away from Soviet factories in Russia to bomb them. And on the front lines, the Soviets now had larger numbers of anti air guns. On ground support aircraft, the Soviets have the advantage, Ilyushin Il-2 was an armored ground attack aircraft, and it was the most produced military aircraft of all time, with 36,183 produced during WW2.

In long term Soviets have zero chance against Americans in the air in this period, because US and Canada made the world's aluminium. IIRC, something like half of Soviet wartime aluminum supply was lend lease.

 

[Sunforged General]

? The US 90mm gun was more powerful than 88/56 with AP and more powerful than 88/71 with HVAP. Slightly later equivalent 90mm guns on the Patton tank series were knocking out more heavily armoured (than JS-2) T-54s just fine (including with ammo not rated to penetrate them ).



In long term Soviets have zero chance against Americans in the air in this period, because US and Canada made the world's aluminium. IIRC, something like half of Soviet wartime aluminum supply was lend lease.

The IS-2 frontal armor was 120mm thick sloped at 60 degrees. Trying to shoot through it is equivalent to 240mm due to the slope. Thats technically thicker than the King Tigers frontal armor, and we know for a fact the 90mm could not penetrate that. Bringing up Cold war Patton tanks is irrelevant, they used futuristic cold war ammo not available in WW2. Here is the schematics for the IS-2 showing 120mm armor at 60 degree angle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IS-1_and_IS-2#/media/File:IS-2_scheme_of_armour.jpg
Mathematically, it is stronger than the Tiger IIs 150mm at a 50 degree angle.

As for Aluminum, basic research shows Russia is the worlds 2nd largest producer of Aluminum. America is 13th place, Canada 3d place. Russia had this massive amount even during WW2. If we take paradox interactive at their worth in research, they start the USSR off with 133 aluminum in HOI IV in 1936, I dont know how much that is in real life, but in game, I've never run out of aluminum, even if I spam aircraft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_primary_aluminium_production

An argument could be made that the Soviets only needed lend lease because the Germans occupied much of the territory that had these resources. But in a war with the allies, the Soviets have full access to these vast resources, because the allies are invading from western Germany (and likely get pushed back very quickly into France.)

 

[elektrizikekswerk]

As for the Germans, any Germans behind the Soviet lines would simply be conscripted. Conscription does not require willing men to join the army.

Fair enough. This doesn't prevent partisan activities, though.

But the National Committee for a free Germany showed many Germans were willing to work with the Soviets. Even many Wehrmacht officers, after capture, joined this soviet sponsored organization. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Committee_for_a_Free_Germany

Yes, but that was (for the most part) before Soviet troops occupied German territory. And it was especially an anti-Nazi movement aiming to liberate Germany from Nazism. In the scenario above this is already accomplished (and the movement most likely dissolved which happened according to wiki in November '45 - this depends of course how "immediate" the US would have attacked).

 

[Sunforged General]

Fair enough. This doesn't prevent partisan activities, though.

Yes, but that was (for the most part) before Soviet troops occupied German territory. And it was especially an anti-Nazi movement aiming to liberate Germany from Nazism. In the scenario above this is already accomplished (and the movement most likely dissolved which happened according to wiki in November '45 - this depends of course how "immediate" the US would have attacked).

Partisans? Sure, the Germans hate the Soviets...but are they really going to go Rambo just to help the Americans who spend the last 4 years carpet bombing German cities? If the Germans hated the Soviets 100%, they probably hated the Americans 99%. At least in the immediate aftermath of the war.